The Silmarillion > The Bible

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Beren One-Hand

But I didn't even think it was possible to compare it with the Bible. The Silmarillion is a book written by Tolkien that was entirely made up. The Bible is a book written by God through men, and is TRUTH, Wether your prepared to accept it or not.

I'd like to respond to this post, but I'll respect Val's comments.

[ecthelion]

Originally Posted by Jon S.

That topic definitely belongs elsewhere so this post is done!

You can open Pandora's box, but then you have to at least hear her out to the end.
I feel I need to write my opinions on the several topics opened here:

The Sil, Iliad and Bible are all comparable in that they all tell a mythos. They have a mythology, and tell about the reason we are here, explain the powers and rules of the world, and how it became like it is today.
The Sil is cooler since few people have read it. But its character development does not surpass that of the Bible. Take David for example: a shepherd, by chnce and will of god kills a giant. becomes the king with the help of the prophet. Then sins, etc. He is a very developed character. And take Job, his suffering is comparable to Hurin.

As for the history value of the Bible, it is uncomparable with the other two. It not only revolves around places and dates (as has been said above), it also mostly tell historical events supported by hard archeological facts that I have seen with my eyes. here are some examples, of the ancient Israeli state (after the Egypt exodus):
The temple
the fort of Massada
all the old cities, as well as their correct locations and ages
coins from the various periods of ancient Israel monarchy
ancient graveyards
Further, there are scattered documents confirming various events. About those I don't have specific knowledge.
About pre-exodus Bible it is much more difficult to obtain archeological facts.

[brownjenkins]

I'll agree with you on the Silmarillion, but the Iliad has comparable historical value.

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally Posted by Kevin McIntyre

The bible actually happened? Intertesting. Granted the Bible is a historically influental collection of stories; however it is not history. The old testament does in fact orbit the historical world of pre-hellenic Palestine, though its stories were never meant to be historical documents. And do not get me started on the veracity of the new testament - a weak coglmoration of ancient myths wrapped around a first century rabbi.

.. Risking inciting the wrath of the mods, I want to respond to this simply so that it will not be the only voice in this thread on the subject of the Bible's veracity. The Bible IS history. Many have started out with this same supposition--that the Bible is myth--and have set out to disprove it, unsuccessfully.

As for comparing the Silly with the Bible, I do find the Sil more fun in places, than the Bible. I think this is because the Sil doesn't carry the weight of something real; it's a made-up world where many things are possible that, in our world, the world of the Bible, are not. There are different races, like Elves and Dwarves, which make the world a bit more strange and diverse than our own. Also, the language of the Sil is often more accessible than the Bible. The Silmarillion doesn't instruct or rebuke, or in any way dictate or prod; the Bible does. Also the Sil strikes something, I think, in the Caucasian, European side of me; the Old Testament, for instance, is entirely placed in the Middle-East. Tolkien's works are in an imagined world, but that imagined world resembles Europe.

But the Bible, on the other hand, is a compelling book. Not only are there stories that can touch and entertain (try reading the story of Joseph in Genesis, or 1st Samuel, or Ruth), but there is a moral quality that urges us to respond. It offers real guidelines for life, real hope for the future, real connection with the God who made us. The Bible has the added bonus of being a real account of events. Personally, I've been fascinated with history since I was young, and I enjoy reading of events that really happened and people who really lived.

To me it's difficult to compare the two books, but if you're speaking strictly from the perspective of the 'stories': things like the creation of the world, lives of people such as Luthien or Moses or David or Turin, I would say the writing is about equal (to me) in narrative power, and the difference is in flavour--the different worlds, the different situations.

[Kevin McIntyre]

The bible is NOT History. Like I stated earlier it does relate historical events in and around palestine during the pre and post hellinistic period, but is not an historical document like the Magna Carta or the US Consitution - or for that matter the works of Josephus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavius_Josephus). However the old-testement does relate historical events in a deeply symbolic way - meaning it interprets historical events in spiritual/superstitous context. For example the interpretation that the Babylonians conquered Judah for the sins of the Jews was the explanation - however man being man - it was about politics and power and encompassed a far more complicated tapestry of events than what is reported in the Book of Daniel.
That being said the bible is a far far greater work than the Silmarillion, for one it was written over many years by many different author (lets not bring God into the authorship - because that is a question of faith not fact and hence unprovable) and the Silmarrilion (as published) are the abriged stories of one man (which in itself is astounding for a whole other set of reasons). Also the Bible is the mythological history of an actual people - and remember myth does not mean it never happened - it just means it didn't happen as reported - its been embellished and translated over millenia (and read Genesis - and then read the creation myths of other cultures and you will see it is a borrowed myth)

My apologies to the moderators for my rant - I am just very sensitive to statements of faith = fact.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Kevin McIntyre

However the old-testement does relate historical events in a deeply symbolic way - meaning it interprets historical events in spiritual/superstitous context. For example the interpretation that the Babylonians conquered Judah for the sins of the Jews was the explanation - however man being man - it was about politics and power and encompassed a far more complicated tapestry of events than what is reported in the Book of Daniel.

That's a good way of putting it. Every history ever written has some authorial interpretation, but the bible has a lot by comparision to other histories of the same periods.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

It offers real guidelines for life, real hope for the future, real connection with the God who made us. The Bible has the added bonus of being a real account of events. Personally, I've been fascinated with history since I was young, and I enjoy reading of events that really happened and people who really lived.

It's way off topic and is sure to draw mod-ire, but that never stopped me...

I agree with you that the bible is compelling and offers some powerful moral advice, but why does the belief that the stories are real even matter?

I'd say that the Silmarillion offers quite a lot of compelling morality as well, and this is not diminished at all by the fact that it was completely fabricated.

[Kevin McIntyre]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Every history ever written has some authorial interpretation, but the bible has a lot by comparision to other histories of the same periods.

No doubt, and I am not saying that you should not go to the bible as an historical reference. In many cases it is a excellant starting point - as is the Illiad - for further exploration of the the past. There were many things going on throughtout the world during "biblical times" and the bible is not near a complete telling of history (which as I stated earlier is not its intent).

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I'll agree with you on the Silmarillion

Ah, that's big of you.

Originally Posted by Kevin

For example the interpretation that the Babylonians conquered Judah for the sins of the Jews was the explanation - however man being man - it was about politics and power and encompassed a far more complicated tapestry of events than what is reported in the Book of Daniel.

There is more than one cause of any given thing, you know... Just because the latter was a cause of the conquer of Judea does not mean the former wasn't.

Originally Posted by bj

I agree with you that the bible is compelling and offers some powerful moral advice, but why does the belief that the stories are real even matter?

Depends on which stories you mean.

[Kevin McIntyre]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

There is more than one cause of any given thing, you know... Just because the latter was a cause of the conquer of Judea does not mean the former wasn't.

Really! So the invasion was the FSM judgement on Judah?, just as Falwell, Robertson, Dobson et. al. want to blame 9/11, Katrina, VA Tech etc. on the homosexuals in the United States - belief that the FSM punishes in such a way needs to be proven before it can be stated as fact. The onus is on the believers to prove this not the non believer to disprove.

This is where Tolkien shows his depth/quality of his faith - Eru set the world in motion but stays above the fray (with a couple of rare exceptions) Illuvatar is no micro-manager. Man has free will - if we are punished with hurricanes or armed invasion because of supposed sins (who decides which sins?) by all powerfull deity then we do not really have free will.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Kevin McIntyre

Really! So the invasion was the FSM judgement on Judah?, just as Falwell, Robertson, Dobson et. al. want to blame 9/11, Katrina, VA Tech etc. on the homosexuals in the United States - belief that the FSM punishes in such a way needs to be proven before it can be stated as fact. The onus is on the believers to prove this not the non believer to disprove.

This is where Tolkien shows his depth/quality of his faith - Eru set the world in motion but stays above the fray (with a couple of rare exceptions) Illuvatar is no micro-manager. Man has free will - if we are punished with hurricanes or armed invasion because of supposed sins (who decides which sins?) by all powerfull deity then we do not really have free will.

Great point!!!

[Valandil]

Time to close this thread, I think.

Not to really blame anybody, but I don't think a discussion of the nature of the Bible belongs in the Silmarillion forum. Maybe a thread like this can be done right at times, but this time... we didn't do it.

Closing.